Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Clarification for Another Reader – The Isle of Promise – Part III

Continuing
from the previous post on why the Nephites knew they were on an island, and our
responses to the several comments sent to us on this by a reader.Reader:
“As far as other people being there,
there are many verses that suggest this is entirely possible if you pay
attention to the context. Not definitively, but possible.”

Response:
In order for any part of the scriptural record to be considered “possible” that
others were in the Land of Promise, i.e., that land being described directly in
the scriptural record, one must ignore other passages to the contrary. It is
not our role to ignore one passage in order to make another mean something it
does not outright say. As an example, it is not a stretch to suggest that there
was no Sea East or Narrow Neck of Land after the crucifixion, since neither are
mentioned any more in the scriptural record. The lack of mentioning could
suggest they were changed after the destruction in 3 Nephi. But to suggest that
there were other people in the land because the numbers don’t add up otherwise
is to ignore direct statements that there was no one else there, and that not a
single passage suggests there were. No matter how hard you pay attention to the
context, nobody is mentioned or suggested in any way. You simply cannot add
something where not only is it not mentioned, but several passages show that no
one could have been, from Ether 13:2 and Lehi’s promise to his children,
including the vision given to Nephi of Columbus and the gentiles. One might
suspect that if others were involved, they would at least have been mentioned
or in some way suggested in the passages about those people mentioned.

Unfortunately,
beginning with Hugh Nibley and later John L. Sorenson, the area of Mesoamerica,
when using academic criteria and 17th century writings supposedly
“remembering” thousand-year-old histories, show a diffusion of peoples in
Mesoamerica, that the Mesoamericanist is obliged to include them within their
Land of Promise models. These models include Jaredites surviving the final wars
though the scriptures say none did; of lengthy Mulekite interaction with
Jaredites, though they could not understand the language and needed Mosiah to
interpret it for them; of Lamanites mixing with other people not otherwise
mentioned in the record in order to bolster their numbers, even though their
larger numbers are easily understood by the record itself.Reader:
“Even the verses leading up to 2 Nephi
1:8 (quoted above) say that the those brought from other nations would be
brought by the hand of the Lord and that the land was covenanted to Lehi's seed
"and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand
of the Lord." Response:
If you read the passages you mention and the others about these “other people”
you will find that it stated all these events “in the future tense,” i.e.,
after Lehi arrived. Those who came after Lehi are clearly defined in Nephi’s
vision; and Lehi makes it clear that none would be coming soon because of the
displacement of his own seed, etc. “And
behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of
other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there
would be no place for an inheritance” (2 Nephi 1:8)—kept as yet, means no
one has come yet!

Lehi
also said, “And if it so be that they
shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land,
and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their
inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever” (2 Nephi 1:9). “and there
should be none to molest them” is pretty clear! Not until Mormon’s time (Mormon
2:15) did the Nephites reach a point where they lost these rights.Reader:
“At the time Lehi stated this, there were
already at least two other groups there (or arriving shortly)- the Jaredites
and the Mulekites. Obviously Lehi's seed was not promised the entire land to
themselves.”Response:
At the time Lehi stated this, it would have been about 10 to 12 years after
Lehi left Jerusalem, making it 590-588 B.C. (Actual time per Zedekiah’s reign:
587-584 B.C.). By this time, the Jaredites were all gone and Coriantumr would
have been wandering his land, eventually heading into the Land Southward. Mulek
and his people would still be on the high seas if his group went through the
same process that Lehi did (with the exception of the weddings), which was an 8
year period in the wilderness and at least one to 2 years building a ship. If
it took Mulek’s group that long, Mulek, who left Jerusalem 10 to 11 years after
Lehi (the former in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign and the latter in the
last year). Since Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 B.C., Mulek would have left the
city sometime between 586 and 588 B.C., which would place him in the Land of
Promise at the very earliest at 582 and the very latest 576 B.C. Either date,
would put them in the Land of Promise a few years after Lehi’s statement.Reader:
“The land was kept secret to those that
the Lord didn't intend to lead there, but not a secret to everyone.”

Response:
It was a secret to everyone. No one came unless the Lord brought them, for Lehi
said, “I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in
me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord” (2 Nephi 1:6,
emphasis added) as well as “and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord”
(2 Nephi 1:5, emphasis added), and “Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto
him whom he shall bring” (2 Nephi
1:7, emphasis added), showing the Lord would lead anyone coming here and that
at Lehi’s time, it would be in the future. The Lord made it clerar no one else
had arrived, new about it, or was already there “And behold, it is wisdom that
this land should be kept as yet from the
knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the
land, that there would be no place for an inheritance” (2 Nephi 1:8, emphasis
added).Reader: “You are spot on about the promised land
being more than the United States.”Response: As we have
said from the beginning, the land promised is the entire Western Hemisphere,
though that portion covered in the scriptural record is only one island—an area
along the western shelf of the present South America continent.Reader: “The Mediterranean climate you mention would
have been very different when they first landed under your theory with the
absence of the Andes mountains.”Response: First of
all, for some reason, though we have written to the contrary numerous times,
some of our readers are under the impression there were no mountains in Andean
South America prior to the crucifixion. Nothing could be further from the
truth. In a vision Nephi had before even reaching the Land of Promise tells us
there were mountains there when the destruction in 3 Nephi began:

“I saw a mist of darkness on the face of the
land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and
earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the
rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the
plains of the earth, that they were broken up; and I saw many cities that they were
sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did
tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof” (1 Nephi l12:4); and
Samuel the Lamanite, speaking from the city wall of Zarahemla the words the
Lord put in his mouth regarding the destruction to take place at the time of
the crucifixion: “there shall be great
tempests, and there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and
there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become
mountains, whose height is great” (Helaman 14:23).Obviously, the Land
of Promise described in the scriptural record underwent a complete change in
topography. For those who have been through a serious earthquake, you know how
damaging a few seconds of shaking can do.(See the next post, “Clarification for
Another Reader – The Isle of Promise – Part IV,” for more on why the Nephites
and particularly Jacob knew they were on an island”

Although, I agree with Del on most of his points, and generally agree with his model, I do like to point out what I think are mistakes in his reasoning from time to time. Not to tear him down, but to strengthen his arguments by removing the weak aspects of them.

For example, today he said a couple things that are troublesome:

1) "it is not a stretch to suggest that there was no Sea East or Narrow Neck of Land after the crucifixion, since neither are mentioned any more in the scriptural record. The lack of mentioning could suggest they were changed after the destruction in 3 Nephi."

2) "One might suspect that if others were involved, they would at least have been mentioned or in some way suggested in the passages about those people mentioned."

The core issue of both statements is the same: the Book of Mormon makes no explicit mention either way, so we can't necessarily draw definitive conclusions. In other words, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

Granted, I believe there IS evidence refuting the idea that there were others, some of which have been stated by Del (read my own reasons here: http://wonderboywonderings.blogspot.com/2014/12/what-does-book-of-mormon-say-about.html). However, I think we should be careful to use any variation of the statement "the Book of Mormon doesn't mention them" as an argument against them.

By the same token, we can't conclusively say that the east sea disappeared after 3rd Nephi simply because it is no longer mentioned. The most we can say is that the lack of mention is only supportive of the thesis, but it does not prove it.

Let me give an example: the Book of Mormon makes no mention of any Lehites eating fish, it's completely silent on the matter. It does, however, mention other food and drink that they DID eat. Are we to then conclude that Lehites didn't eat fish because the Book of Mormon says nothing about it? I think most people would think that a ridiculous notion. Given the preponderance of "waters," "rivers," "fountains," and the "seashores" often mentioned, using our knowledge of human existence, and considering that there's probably not a single historical people anywhere in the americas who DIDN'T eat fish, it's probably safe to say they ate fish--even though the Book of Mormon doesn't explicitly say it.

On the other hand, if the scriptural record said the Nephites had eaten fish in 20 different references, then of a sudden said there was a drastic change in diet brought about by a cataclysmic event, then went on to say what they ate after that and did not mention fish, one might draw a rather conclusive, though assumptive, conclusion from this change in comment. I think if we are going to use examples, they need to be representative of the facts or the comparison. As for the Sea East, there are other factors--it did exist, it is frequently mentioned, and there was an island, and the Nephites had built several cities along that coast, which was mentioned numerous times, as was the fact that the Lamanites attacked these cities from time to time when commencing a war, etc., but when they commenced a war (which turned out to launch the final battles of the nation) the Lamanites were doing so in the area they had done so in the past (near the Sidon), yet no mention of the cities, Sea East, coast, seashore, etc. I take that as very particular, though as you say, not fact. Still, we have suggested other ideas on no less of suggestive things which fit the picture better than something else. After all, when it comes to the geography of the Land of Promise in the Book of Mormon, there are few concrete "facts" -- Just ideas.

True, however, it IS mentioned that the Jaredites brought fish with them--so it is mentioned, but then never elaborated on further.

Another problematic issue with comparing the contents of the BOM before and after the Great Cataclysm is the amount of space devoted to those two timelines.

The majority of the Lehite portion of the BOM narrative happens *before* the cataclysm. Frankly, about the only real devotion to any kind of detailed historical narrative is the first 6 chapters of Mormon and one chapter of Moroni. And, if you include 4 Nephi, that's only 8 chapters covering approximately 400 years. We shouldn't be surprised that most of the stuff that's mentioned before the cataclysm isn't mentioned again after it!

I'm not saying this disproves your theory. What I'm saying is that the argument that the east sea is mentioned beforehand but never afterwards doesn't really strengthen your case. Sure, it's supportive, but it's barely even that due to a pretty thin content of any kind of narrative information, comparatively speaking.

If you don't care for the fish example, here's another: horses and chariots are referenced before the cataclysm, but not after. Does that mean that all horses and chariots disappeared in the cataclysm?

I an a South Americanist. I just want the theories and arguments to be tight and as strong as possible. I don't want us to fall prey to the same mistakes and sloppiness that plague so many other theories and theorists. That's why I am pedantic about some of this stuff.

I an a South Americanist. I just want the theories and arguments to be tight and as strong as possible. I don't want us to fall prey to the same mistakes and sloppiness that plague so many other theories and theorists. That's why I am pedantic about some of this stuff.

True, however, it IS mentioned that the Jaredites brought fish with them--so it is mentioned, but then never elaborated on further.

Another problematic issue with comparing the contents of the BOM before and after the Great Cataclysm is the amount of space devoted to those two timelines.

The majority of the Lehite portion of the BOM narrative happens *before* the cataclysm. Frankly, about the only real devotion to any kind of detailed historical narrative is the first 6 chapters of Mormon and one chapter of Moroni. And, if you include 4 Nephi, that's only 8 chapters covering approximately 400 years. We shouldn't be surprised that most of the stuff that's mentioned before the cataclysm isn't mentioned again after it!

I'm not saying this disproves your theory. What I'm saying is that the argument that the east sea is mentioned beforehand but never afterwards doesn't really strengthen your case. Sure, it's supportive, but it's barely even that due to a pretty thin content of any kind of narrative information, comparatively speaking.

If you don't care for the fish example, here's another: horses and chariots are referenced before the cataclysm, but not after. Does that mean that all horses and chariots disappeared in the cataclysm?

Wonder Boy: Read your article you reference above. Very interesting. Thank you. We evidently differ on who settled Mesoamerica, but for the Land of Promise you have given a good argument in favor of no one there.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say we differ on who settled Mesoamerica, though. In the article, I go to lengths to dismiss the Mesoamerican hypothesis. Would you clarify what you meant by your comment?